Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 207 references

Massive gravity is a consistent, ghost-free infrared modification of General Relativity with a uniquely constrained interaction structure.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 23:07 UTC pith:YUTETVIH

load-bearing objection A solid, candid invited review of dRGT massive gravity, but the abstract and conclusion overstate the evidence for Vainshtein screening in the full theory; the body honestly flags the gap. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15507 v2 pith:YUTETVIH submitted 2026-07-16 hep-th

Massive Gravity @ 15

Claudia de Rham This is my paper
classification hep-th MSC 83D0583F0581T12 PACS 04.50.Kd04.30.-w98.80.-k
keywords massive gravityghost-freedRGTVainshtein mechanismdecoupling limitpositivity boundswell-posednesscosmological constant
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This review argues that Lorentz-invariant massive gravity, specifically the ghost-free dRGT theory, provides a theoretically consistent and phenomenologically viable way to modify gravity in the infrared. The central claim is that the nonlinear interaction structure of dRGT massive gravity propagates exactly five degrees of freedom, avoiding the Boulware–Deser ghost, and raises the strong-coupling scale to its maximal value, making it a well-defined effective field theory. The Vainshtein mechanism, automatically built into the theory, screens the extra helicity-0 mode in local environments, reconciling the theory with solar-system and laboratory tests of gravity. The review further contends that unitarity, analyticity, and causality (positivity bounds) strongly single out the ghost-free theory as the preferred infrared realization of a massive spin-2 field, and that recent developments in well-posedness, T¯T deformations, and islands enhance its credibility. The paper is a status report on 15 years of research, assessing both the theoretical consistency and the observational constraints on the graviton mass.

Core claim

The paper establishes that dRGT massive gravity is the unique, consistent nonlinear completion of the Fierz–Pauli mass term that avoids the Boulware–Deser ghost and propagates exactly five degrees of freedom. This unique interaction structure, built from the square-root tensor K, not only resolves the long-standing obstruction to interacting massive spin-2 fields but also maximizes the strong-coupling scale, Λ3 = (M_Pl m^2)^{1/3}, which organizes the theory as a controlled EFT. The decoupling limit reveals Galileon-type interactions for the helicity-0 mode, protected by a non-renormalization theorem, and the Vainshtein mechanism screens the fifth force in high-density regions. Recent work sh

What carries the argument

The central object is the dRGT interaction potential U built from the square-root tensor K^μ_ν = δ^μ_ν − √(g^{μα}η_{αν}). The special structure of this potential makes the Hessian of the Stückelberg fields degenerate, ensuring a primary (and secondary) constraint that eliminates the Boulware–Deser ghost, propagating exactly five degrees of freedom. In the decoupling limit (m→0, M_Pl→∞, Λ3 fixed), the helicity-0 mode acquires Galileon self-interactions, and the non-renormalization theorem protects these interactions from quantum corrections. The Vainshtein mechanism arises from these nonlinear interactions, screening the helicity-0 mode within a radius r∗, and the diffusion-regulator formulat

Load-bearing premise

The entire edifice relies on the decoupling limit (m→0, M_Pl→∞, Λ3 fixed) being a controlled approximation that captures the full nonlinear physics, especially the Vainshtein mechanism and the claimed uniqueness of the ghost-free structure.

What would settle it

A concrete observation that would falsify the central claim is the detection of a fifth force (or a violation of the equivalence principle) at scales shorter than the Vainshtein radius for a source like the Sun or a neutron star, where the theory predicts complete screening. Alternatively, a rigorous proof that the diffusion-regulator formulation fails to produce well-posed evolution for generic backgrounds beyond minimal dRGT near Minkowski would falsify the claim of general well-posedness. Also, any explicit construction of a ghost-free massive gravity theory with a different interaction str

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The graviton mass can be as large as ~10^{-22} eV (consistent with gravitational-wave dispersion bounds) without violating local tests, because the Vainshtein mechanism screens the extra polarization.
  • Massive gravity provides a technically natural resolution to the cosmological constant problem: the graviton mass is protected from quantum corrections by diffeomorphism invariance.
  • The dRGT structure is singled out by positivity bounds: any massive spin-2 EFT that violates the ghost-free structure is inconsistent with a local, unitary, causal UV completion.
  • The theory admits a well-posed dynamical formulation, enabling fully nonlinear numerical simulations of black holes and cosmological solutions in massive gravity.
  • If massive gravity is correct, gravitational waves from distant sources will show dispersion and birefringence effects, which can be tested by LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA and future observatories.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the decoupling limit remains a controlled approximation, the Vainshtein mechanism's screening radius could be used to design new short-range gravity experiments, but the nonlinear condensate might also produce unique astrophysical signatures, such as modified gravitational wave echoes.
  • The positive-definiteness of the dRGT parameter space (the 'island of positivity') suggests that only a limited region of parameter space is compatible with a local UV completion; future positivity bounds could pin down the exact allowed region, providing a falsifiable prediction.
  • The 2D equivalence to T¯T deformation hints that massive gravity in 4D might be a particular irrelevant deformation of a non-gravitational theory, implying that its UV completion may be non-local but still consistent; this could be tested by constructing explicit 4D T¯T-like flows.
  • The role of massive gravity in island calculations hints that the graviton mass could resolve the black hole information paradox in a way that massless gravity cannot, potentially connecting IR modifications to quantum gravity.
  • The claim that helicity-2 gravitational waves travel along the light cone on arbitrary backgrounds (a recent result mentioned in the review) can be tested with future gravitational wave observations of strong-field mergers, providing a novel non-linear test of massive gravity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This invited review, 'Massive Gravity @ 15', surveys the status of Lorentz-invariant ghost-free (dRGT) massive gravity fifteen years after its construction. It covers the original cosmological-constant motivation, the EFT perspective on gravity, the Stückelberg and Hamiltonian derivations of the five-degree-of-freedom constraint structure, the decoupling limit and Galileon interactions, the Vainshtein mechanism, observational graviton-mass bounds, recent well-posedness and numerical formulations, positivity/analyticity constraints on possible UV completions, the T̄T-deformation connection in two dimensions, and applications to black-hole islands. The paper's central claim is that dRGT massive gravity is a distinguished, internally consistent infrared modification of GR: ghost-free, with a maximally raised strong-coupling scale, a built-in Vainshtein screening mechanism, and support from unitarity/analyticity/causality arguments.

Significance. If the claims as stated in the abstract are accepted, dRGT massive gravity would be the canonical EFT of a massive graviton, uniquely selected by consistency and screening requirements. The review is technically accurate in its core derivations: the degree-of-freedom counting, the decoupling-limit Galileon structure, the non-renormalization statement, and the structure of positivity bounds are presented carefully and with appropriate caveats, especially in the discussion of [180]. The paper also has the merit of distinguishing established results from expectations, e.g., in the well-posedness section. However, the abstract and conclusions are stronger than the body's own qualifications, particularly regarding Vainshtein screening in the full nonlinear theory and the status of well-posedness beyond minimal dRGT near Minkowski. Because these are load-bearing for the paper's advertised message, the overstatements need correction.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.4 and Conclusions] The core phenomenological claim—that Vainshtein screening ensures agreement with local tests—is stated more strongly than the evidence presented. The explicit derivation in Sec. 4.4, Eqs. (4.29)–(4.32), is for a cubic/quartic Galileon in the decoupling limit (4.9), with a static, spherically symmetric source, and the text concedes that 'the precise implementation of the Vainshtein mechanism in generic (non-symmetric) configurations is still under investigation.' Yet the opening of Sec. 6 states that dRGT's nonlinear constraint forbids solutions that are static and spherically symmetric (refs. [150–152]); the very configuration used to exhibit screening is not a solution of the full theory. The Conclusions then assert that the mechanism's robustness 'has been confirmed through analytic arguments and fully nonlinear numerical simulations [129,130].' Refs. [129,130] are numerical studies of
  2. [Sec. 6.1, Eqs. (6.6)–(6.10)] The claim of a 'manifestly well-posed' dynamical formulation is partly a claim about a modified system. Equation (6.6) adds diffusion terms ℓ²∇² to the evolution equations; the parabolic high-frequency dispersion (6.10) and strong well-posedness follow for this regulated system. The manuscript states that physical solutions are unaffected in the regime T ≪ ℓ⁻², L ≫ ℓ, but this is an assertion rather than a demonstrated convergence statement. Moreover, the text limits the unregulated result to minimal massive gravity close to Minkowski: 'There is an expectation that this holds more generally, although this has not been fully confirmed at present.' The abstract's 'manifestly well-posed way within some limits and beyond' and the conclusion's claim that these developments 'provide answers for the more nontrivial dynamical questions' should be reconciled with this caveat. Please clarify that
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.4] Typo: 'all intense and purposes' should be 'all intents and purposes'.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 6.2] The phrase 'strongly single out' in the abstract is stronger than Sec. 6.2's own summary, which says the question of a local UV completion 'has not yet been fully resolved' and that [180] is inconclusive. Suggest rewording to 'current positivity arguments favour the ghost-free Λ₃ structure' to match the body.
  3. [Sec. 6.3] The statement that two-dimensional massive gravity is 'exactly equivalent' to a T̄T deformation 'at both the classical and quantum level' is asserted without derivation. A sentence explaining the logical status (exact resummation vs. perturbative equivalence) would help the non-specialist reader.
  4. [Table 1/Caption] The caption says grey checkmarks indicate model-dependent behavior, but the table itself does not visually distinguish grey from black checkmarks. Please ensure the printed symbols are distinguishable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the load-bearing claims are either derived in the text or backed by independent published work; flagged limitations are validation-strength concerns, not circular reductions.

full rationale

This is a review, not a new derivation, so the relevant question is whether the surveyed claims reduce to their own inputs or to unverified self-citations. The central claim—that the dRGT potential propagates exactly five degrees of freedom—is presented in Sec. 3.3 with citations [16,17] (the original dRGT papers) but also [18,85,86], where Hassan-Rosen and others give independent Hamiltonian and Stückelberg proofs of ghost-freedom. That independence breaks any circular reduction: the uniqueness of the dRGT structure is not asserted as an article of the author's prior work alone. The Vainshtein-screening argument in Sec. 4.4 is actually carried out in the text starting from the explicit cubic-Galileon Lagrangian (4.29), and the weaker screening force (4.30) follows from the equations of motion, not from a fitted parameter presented as a prediction. The paper itself flags the generic case as incomplete: 'The precise implementation of the Vainshtein mechanism in generic (non-symmetric) configurations is still under investigation.' The Conclusion's phrase 'fully nonlinear numerical simulations [129,130]' refers to quartic-Galileon simulations in the decoupling limit, not full dRGT, and this is a substantive validation-gap/correctness concern rather than a circularity, because the simulations are not being used as the definition of the conclusion. The well-posedness section also admits 'There is an expectation that this holds more generally, although this has not been fully confirmed at present,' again a stated limitation rather than a circular step. The positivity-bounds discussion engages independent and even critical work [177,180] and derives constraints such as Δc=Δd=0 from dispersion-theoretic axioms; the conclusion that the ghost-free Λ3 structure is favoured is a nontrivial consequence, not an input. Similarly, the T̄T equivalence in Sec. 6.3 cites [181,182] for the exact map; while [181] is by a close collaborator, it is a separate published proof and no equation in this review defines massive gravity in terms of T̄T by construction. Overall, no step in this review reduces a prediction to its own input or makes a load-bearing argument rest only on an unverified self-citation, so the circularity score is 0. The self-citation density is high, as expected for a founder's review, but the hard-rule distinction between self-citation and circularity is respected here.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The review itself introduces no new free parameters, but the viability conclusions depend on tuned m and α3/α4, on the EFT/decoupling-limit assumptions, and on the ad hoc diffusion regulator. It invokes no new particles or forces.

free parameters (3)
  • graviton mass m = ~10^-33 eV for cosmological relevance
    The review's phenomenological discussion assumes m of order H0 to address the CC problem; this is a tuned input of the theory, not derived (Section 2.4, and constraints in Section 5).
  • dRGT parameters α3, α4 = constrained by positivity island / Vainshtein viability, not numerically specified
    Two-parameter family of ghost-free potentials (Eq. 3.13); phenomenological viability requires choices within the positivity island (§6.2).
  • diffusion regulator ℓ² = unspecified
    Ad hoc coefficient added to evolution equations (Eq. 6.6) to establish well-posedness; physical results claimed insensitive for T≪ℓ^-2, L≫ℓ, but ℓ is not fixed.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The decoupling limit m→0, MPl→∞ with Λ3 fixed is a controlled approximation to the full nonlinear theory.
    Used throughout §4.3 and §4.4 to derive Galileon interactions and the Vainshtein mechanism; this is the weakest load-bearing premise.
  • domain assumption Massive gravity can be treated as a local EFT with cutoff up to Λ3, and strong-coupling reorganization is valid.
    Central to the Vainshtein mechanism and to the positivity-bound analysis in §6.2; the review itself notes the reorganization differs from standard EFT logic.
  • domain assumption Unitarity, analyticity, causality, and locality axioms for a standard UV completion apply to massive gravity amplitudes.
    Explicitly stated in §6.2 (assumptions 1-4); used to derive positivity bounds. The review later questions the applicability of some analyticity assumptions for negative t.
  • ad hoc to paper The diffusion terms added in Eq. (6.6) do not alter physical content in the regime T≪ℓ^-2, L≫ℓ.
    Introduced to obtain strong well-posedness; the review asserts insensitivity to ℓ² but does not prove it rigorously for all relevant configurations.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 40087 in / 12604 out tokens · 129457 ms · 2026-08-01T23:07:14.198004+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Massive gravity is one of the most natural proposals for modifying gravity at large distance scales. First proposed to tackle the cosmological constant problem, it has the potential to simultaneously maintain theoretical consistency and agreement with current observational constraints. The development of Lorentz-invariant ghost-free massive gravity resolves long-standing obstacles associated with interacting massive spin--2 fields. Central to this development is a highly constrained nonlinear interaction structure that propagates exactly five degrees of freedom. The same interaction structure raises the strong-coupling scale to its maximal value, which organizes the theory as an effective field theory. Phenomenological consistency with local tests of gravity is ensured by nonlinear screening through the Vainshtein mechanism, which is automatically built in. Recent developments have shown how to formulate the theory in a manifestly well-posed way within some limits and beyond. From an effective field theory perspective, unitarity, analyticity, and causality impose powerful constraints that strongly single out the ghost-free theory as a distinguished infrared realisation of massive gravity. We further discuss these results in light of recent consistency analyses, which we put in context. Interestingly, massive gravity has recently been invoked in discussions of black-hole entanglement entropy and spacetime regions known as `islands'. The theory is also shown to emerge as an exactly solvable $T \bar T$ deformation in both two dimensions and for special cases in higher dimensions, opening up valuable insights into its UV behaviour. Massive Gravity thus serves as a valuable theoretical laboratory for exploring the interplay between phenomenology and UV completions in infrared modifications of General Relativity.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

207 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. M. Will,The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,Living Rev. Rel. 17(2014) 4, [1403.7377]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    C. M. Will,Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics. Cambridge University Press, 9, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    R. A. Hulse and J. H. Taylor,Discovery of a pulsar in a binary system,Astrophys. J. Lett. 195(1975) L51–L53. [4]LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration, B. P. Abbott et al.,Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) 061102, [1602.03837]. [5]Event Horizon Telescopecollaboration, K. Akiyama et al.,First M87 Even...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1975

  4. [8]

    Perlmutter, M

    S. Perlmutter, M. S. Turner and M. J. White,Constraining dark energy with SNe Ia and large scale structure,Phys. Rev. Lett.83(1999) 670–673, [astro-ph/9901052]. [9]Planckcollaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6, [1807.06209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  5. [10]

    Weinberg,The Cosmological Constant Problem,Rev

    S. Weinberg,The Cosmological Constant Problem,Rev. Mod. Phys.61(1989) 1–23

    1989

  6. [11]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. Dvali and G. Gabadadze,Nonlocal modification of gravity and the cosmological constant problem,hep-th/0209227

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [12]

    Dvali, S

    G. Dvali, S. Hofmann and J. Khoury,Degravitation of the cosmological constant and graviton width,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 084006, [hep-th/0703027]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  8. [13]

    A. I. Vainshtein,To the problem of nonvanishing gravitation mass,Phys. Lett. B39(1972) 393–394

    1972

  9. [14]

    Babichev and C

    E. Babichev and C. Deffayet,An introduction to the Vainshtein mechanism,Class. Quant. Grav.30(2013) 184001, [1304.7240]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  10. [15]

    D. G. Boulware and S. Deser,Inconsistency of finite range gravitation,Phys. Lett. B40 (1972) 227–229

    1972

  11. [16]

    de Rham and G

    C. de Rham and G. Gabadadze,Generalization of the Fierz-Pauli Action,Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 044020, [1007.0443]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  12. [17]

    de Rham, G

    C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze and A. J. Tolley,Resummation of Massive Gravity,Phys. Rev. Lett.106(2011) 231101, [1011.1232]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [18]

    S. F. Hassan and R. A. Rosen,Resolving the Ghost Problem in non-Linear Massive Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 041101, [1106.3344]. – 43 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [19]

    de Rham,Massive Gravity,Living Rev

    C. de Rham,Massive Gravity,Living Rev. Rel.17(2014) 7, [1401.4173]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [20]

    de Rham and A

    C. de Rham and A. J. Tolley,The Encyclopedia of Cosmology: Volume 1: Modified Gravity. World Scientific, 11, 2023. 10.1142/13578-vol1. [21]LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 1M2H, Dark Energy Camera GW-E, DES, DLT40, Las Cumbres Observatory, VINROUGE, MASTERcollaboration, B. P. Abbott et al.,A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant,Natu...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [22]

    ’t Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,NATO Sci

    G. ’t Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,NATO Sci. Ser. B59(1980) 135–157

    1980

  17. [23]

    de Rham, G

    C. de Rham, G. Dvali, S. Hofmann, J. Khoury, O. Pujolas, M. Redi et al.,Cascading gravity: Extending the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati model to higher dimension,Phys. Rev. Lett.100 (2008) 251603, [0711.2072]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  18. [24]

    de Rham, J

    C. de Rham, J. Khoury and A. J. Tolley,Flat 3-Brane with Tension in Cascading Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.103(2009) 161601, [0907.0473]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  19. [25]

    de Rham, G

    C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze, L. Heisenberg and D. Pirtskhalava,Nonrenormalization and naturalness in a class of scalar-tensor theories,Phys. Rev.D87(2013) 085017, [1212.4128]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  20. [26]

    de Rham, L

    C. de Rham, L. Heisenberg and R. H. Ribeiro,Quantum Corrections in Massive Gravity, Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 084058, [1307.7169]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [27]

    Bousso and J

    R. Bousso and J. Polchinski,Quantization of four form fluxes and dynamical neutralization of the cosmological constant,JHEP06(2000) 006, [hep-th/0004134]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  22. [28]

    Witten,The Cosmological constant from the viewpoint of string theory, in4th International Symposium on Sources and Detection of Dark Matter in the Universe (DM 2000), pp

    E. Witten,The Cosmological constant from the viewpoint of string theory, in4th International Symposium on Sources and Detection of Dark Matter in the Universe (DM 2000), pp. 27–36, 3, 2000.hep-ph/0002297

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  23. [29]

    Smolin,Quantum gravity with a positive cosmological constant,hep-th/0209079

    L. Smolin,Quantum gravity with a positive cosmological constant,hep-th/0209079

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [30]

    Ahmed, S

    M. Ahmed, S. Dodelson, P. B. Greene and R. Sorkin,EverpresentΛ,Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 103523, [astro-ph/0209274]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  25. [31]

    R. M. Wald,Spin-2 Fields and General Covariance,Phys. Rev. D33(1986) 3613

    1986

  26. [32]

    de Rham, S

    C. de Rham, S. Jaitly and A. J. Tolley,Constraints on Regge behaviour from IR physics, 2212.04975

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [33]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla and C. Skordis,Modified Gravity and Cosmology,Phys. Rept.513(2012) 1–189, [1106.2476]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [34]

    de Rham,The gravitational rainbow beyond Einstein gravity,Int

    C. de Rham,The gravitational rainbow beyond Einstein gravity,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D28 (2019) 1942003

    2019

  29. [35]

    Nicolis, R

    A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi and E. Trincherini,The Galileon as a local modification of gravity, Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 064036, [0811.2197]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  30. [36]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Mukohyama,Minimal theory of massive gravity,Phys. Lett. B752(2016) 302–305, [1506.01594]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [37]

    Horava,Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point,Phys

    P. Horava,Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 084008, [0901.3775]. – 44 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  32. [38]

    Afshordi, D

    N. Afshordi, D. J. H. Chung and G. Geshnizjani,Cuscuton: A Causal Field Theory with an Infinite Speed of Sound,Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 083513, [hep-th/0609150]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  33. [39]

    Arkani-Hamed, H.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, H.-C. Cheng, M. A. Luty and S. Mukohyama,Ghost condensation and a consistent infrared modification of gravity,JHEP05(2004) 074, [hep-th/0312099]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  34. [40]

    S. M. Carroll, V. Duvvuri, M. Trodden and M. S. Turner,Is Cosmic Speed-Up Due to New Gravitational Physics?,Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 043528, [astro-ph/0306438]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  35. [41]

    G. W. Horndeski,Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space,Int. J. Theor. Phys.10(1974) 363–384

    1974

  36. [42]

    Gleyzes, D

    J. Gleyzes, D. Langlois, F. Piazza and F. Vernizzi,Healthy theories beyond Horndeski,Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) 211101, [1404.6495]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [43]

    Heisenberg,Generalised Proca Theories, in52nd Rencontres de Moriond on Gravitation, pp

    L. Heisenberg,Generalised Proca Theories, in52nd Rencontres de Moriond on Gravitation, pp. 233–241, 2017.1705.05387

    arXiv 2017

  38. [44]

    de Rham and V

    C. de Rham and V. Pozsgay,New class of Proca interactions,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 083508, [2003.13773]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [45]

    S. F. Hassan and R. A. Rosen,Bimetric Gravity from Ghost-free Massive Gravity,JHEP02 (2012) 126, [1109.3515]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  40. [46]

    Hinterbichler and R

    K. Hinterbichler and R. A. Rosen,Interacting Spin-2 Fields,JHEP07(2012) 047, [1203.5783]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  41. [47]

    Kaluza,Zum Unit¨ atsproblem der Physik,Sitzungsber

    T. Kaluza,Zum Unit¨ atsproblem der Physik,Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. )1921(1921) 966–972, [1803.08616]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1921

  42. [48]

    Klein,Quantum Theory and Five-Dimensional Theory of Relativity

    O. Klein,Quantum Theory and Five-Dimensional Theory of Relativity. (In German and English),Z. Phys.37(1926) 895–906

    1926

  43. [49]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum,An Alternative to compactification,Phys. Rev. Lett.83(1999) 4690–4693, [hep-th/9906064]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  44. [50]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali,The Hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,Phys. Lett. B429(1998) 263–272, [hep-ph/9803315]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  45. [51]

    G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati,4-D gravity on a brane in 5-D Minkowski space, Phys. Lett. B485(2000) 208–214, [hep-th/0005016]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  46. [52]

    Jaccard, M

    M. Jaccard, M. Maggiore and E. Mitsou,Nonlocal theory of massive gravity,Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 044033, [1305.3034]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  47. [53]

    Aghababaie, C

    Y. Aghababaie, C. P. Burgess, S. L. Parameswaran and F. Quevedo,Towards a naturally small cosmological constant from branes in 6-D supergravity,Nucl. Phys. B680(2004) 389–414, [hep-th/0304256]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  48. [54]

    K. S. Stelle,Renormalization of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity,Phys. Rev.D16(1977) 953–969

    1977

  49. [55]

    Bekenstein and M

    J. Bekenstein and M. Milgrom,Does the missing mass problem signal the breakdown of Newtonian gravity?,Astrophys. J.286(1984) 7–14

    1984

  50. [56]

    Milgrom,The Modified dynamics: A Status review, in2nd International Heidelberg – 45 – Conference on Dark Matter in Astro and Particle Physics, pp

    M. Milgrom,The Modified dynamics: A Status review, in2nd International Heidelberg – 45 – Conference on Dark Matter in Astro and Particle Physics, pp. 443–457, 7, 1998. astro-ph/9810302

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  51. [57]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman,Chameleon fields: Awaiting surprises for tests of gravity in space, Phys. Rev. Lett.93(2004) 171104, [astro-ph/0309300]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  52. [58]

    Hinterbichler and J

    K. Hinterbichler and J. Khoury,Symmetron Fields: Screening Long-Range Forces Through Local Symmetry Restoration,Phys. Rev. Lett.104(2010) 231301, [1001.4525]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  53. [59]

    Dvali, G

    G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Shifman,Diluting cosmological constant via large distance modification of gravity, in18th IAP Colloquium on the Nature of Dark Energy: Observational and Theoretical Results on the Accelerating Universe, pp. 566–581, 8, 2002.hep-th/0208096. DOI

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  54. [60]

    Fierz and W

    M. Fierz and W. Pauli,On relativistic wave equations for particles of arbitrary spin in an electromagnetic field,Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A173(1939) 211–232

    1939

  55. [61]

    Comelli, M

    D. Comelli, M. Crisostomi, F. Nesti and L. Pilo,Degrees of Freedom in Massive Gravity,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 101502, [1204.1027]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  56. [62]

    Hinterbichler,Ghost-Free Derivative Interactions for a Massive Graviton,JHEP10(2013) 102, [1305.7227]

    K. Hinterbichler,Ghost-Free Derivative Interactions for a Massive Graviton,JHEP10(2013) 102, [1305.7227]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  57. [63]

    Comelli, F

    D. Comelli, F. Nesti and L. Pilo,Massive gravity: a General Analysis,JHEP07(2013) 161, [1305.0236]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  58. [64]

    de Rham, A

    C. de Rham, A. Matas and A. J. Tolley,New Kinetic Interactions for Massive Gravity?,Class. Quant. Grav.31(2014) 165004, [1311.6485]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  59. [65]

    G. Goon, K. Hinterbichler, A. Joyce and M. Trodden,Einstein Gravity, Massive Gravity, Multi-Gravity and Nonlinear Realizations,JHEP07(2015) 101, [1412.6098]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  60. [66]

    Noller,On Consistent Kinetic and Derivative Interactions for Gravitons,JCAP04(2015) 025, [1409.7692]

    J. Noller,On Consistent Kinetic and Derivative Interactions for Gravitons,JCAP04(2015) 025, [1409.7692]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  61. [67]

    Gao,Derivative interactions for a spin-2 field at cubic order,Phys

    X. Gao,Derivative interactions for a spin-2 field at cubic order,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 064024, [1403.6781]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  62. [68]

    de Rham, A

    C. de Rham, A. Matas and A. J. Tolley,New Kinetic Terms for Massive Gravity and Multi-gravity: A No-Go in Vielbein Form,Class. Quant. Grav.32(2015) 215027, [1505.00831]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  63. [69]

    de Rham and A

    C. de Rham and A. J. Tolley,Vielbein to the rescue? Breaking the symmetric vielbein condition in massive gravity and multigravity,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 024024, [1505.01450]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  64. [70]

    Matas,Foundations of Massive Gravity

    A. Matas,Foundations of Massive Gravity. PhD thesis, Case Western Reserve University, 2016

    2016

  65. [71]

    J. J. Bonifacio,Aspects of Massive Spin-2 Effective Field Theories. PhD thesis, Oxford U., 2017

    2017

  66. [72]

    Alberte, C

    L. Alberte, C. de Rham, A. Momeni, J. Rumbutis and A. J. Tolley,EFT of Interacting Spin-2 Fields,JHEP01(2020) 131, [1910.05285]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  67. [73]

    Gabadadze and D

    G. Gabadadze and D. Pirtskhalava,Boundary Terms for Massive General Relativity,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 124045, [1803.11238]. – 46 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  68. [74]

    Yamashita, A

    Y. Yamashita, A. De Felice and T. Tanaka,Appearance of Boulware–Deser ghost in bigravity with doubly coupled matter,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D23(2014) 1443003, [1408.0487]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  69. [75]

    de Rham, L

    C. de Rham, L. Heisenberg and R. H. Ribeiro,On couplings to matter in massive (bi-)gravity, Class. Quant. Grav.32(2015) 035022, [1408.1678]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  70. [76]

    de Rham, L

    C. de Rham, L. Heisenberg and R. H. Ribeiro,Ghosts and matter couplings in massive gravity, bigravity and multigravity,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 124042, [1409.3834]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  71. [77]

    Matas,Cutoff for Extensions of Massive Gravity and Bi-Gravity,Class

    A. Matas,Cutoff for Extensions of Massive Gravity and Bi-Gravity,Class. Quant. Grav.33 (2016) 075004, [1506.00666]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  72. [78]

    Maheshwari,Spin-2 field theories and the tensor-field identity,Nuovo Cim

    A. Maheshwari,Spin-2 field theories and the tensor-field identity,Nuovo Cim. A8(1972) 319–330

    1972

  73. [79]

    Zumino,Effective Lagrangians and Broken Symmetries, 1970

    B. Zumino,Effective Lagrangians and Broken Symmetries, 1970

    1970

  74. [80]

    V. I. Ogievetsky and I. V. Polubarinov,Interacting field of spin 2 and the Einstein equations, Annals Phys.35(1965) 167–208

    1965

  75. [81]

    Gabadadze,General Relativity With An Auxiliary Dimension,Phys

    G. Gabadadze,General Relativity With An Auxiliary Dimension,Phys. Lett. B681(2009) 89–95, [0908.1112]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  76. [82]

    de Rham,Massive gravity from Dirichlet boundary conditions,Phys

    C. de Rham,Massive gravity from Dirichlet boundary conditions,Phys. Lett.B688(2010) 137–141, [0910.5474]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  77. [83]

    de Rham and G

    C. de Rham and G. Gabadadze,Selftuned Massive Spin-2,Phys. Lett.B693(2010) 334–338, [1006.4367]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  78. [84]

    de Rham, G

    C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze and A. J. Tolley,Ghost free Massive Gravity in the St¨ uckelberg language,Phys. Lett. B711(2012) 190–195, [1107.3820]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  79. [85]

    S. F. Hassan, A. Schmidt-May and M. von Strauss,Proof of Consistency of Nonlinear Massive Gravity in the St´ uckelberg Formulation,Phys. Lett.B715(2012) 335–339, [1203.5283]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  80. [86]

    S. F. Hassan and R. A. Rosen,Confirmation of the Secondary Constraint and Absence of Ghost in Massive Gravity and Bimetric Gravity,JHEP04(2012) 123, [1111.2070]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

Showing first 80 references.